Three Takes on the Same Story

A South Carolina man has been charged with having sex with a horse -- for the second time.

Joe. My. God. says: "It's a crazy world, people."

Cincinnati Blog says: "In a new low, the Enquirer chose this story to pick up from the AP Wire. I guess they have a large equine readership down in the Bluegrass state that would be interested."

The owner, Barbara Kinley, via the Huffington Post, says: "Everyone around here has horses," Kenley said. "And they all said the same thing. You should have shot him."

I say: I have officially added "bestiality" to the list of tags on my blog. Win?

More Stuff on Obama and the Gays

Perusing the internet, there's lots and lots and lots of interesting stuff out there to read about Obama and the LGBTQ rights movement. Here's exactly four to look over. :-) Good morning, Cincinnati! Wish me luck on my two finals today!

From the Washington Post yesterday:

Obama's memorandum, designed to be both incremental and pragmatic, typifies the cautious way he has approached gay issues since taking office five months ago. Although he has appointed gays to prominent positions in his administration -- including John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management -- the memorandum marked his first official foray into the issue as president, a delay that has angered gay supporters.

A number of other constituencies have likewise been disappointed by Obama's pace in addressing their issues, as he has focused much of his attention on the economic crisis and foreign policy initiatives. Hispanic groups have expressed frustration that he has yet to take up comprehensive immigration reform, for example, and human rights and civil liberties organizations have criticized his opposition to the release of detainee abuse photos and his adherence to other aspects of the Bush administration's national security policies.

"We are working on a large amount of things," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters yesterday.

Poor press guy Gibbs -- that man has not been able to catch a break, and I don't think his boss has been helping him out all that much. What a weak answer. But, again, you can't build Rome in a day. Is that the quote?

From the Huffington Post, entitled "Will Gays Divorce the Democrats?"

What does this mean for 2010? Who knows. But the sheen is off the Dream Machine known as Barack Obama. And Congress and the DNC -- well, Tim Kaine is no Howard Dean -- he's made no real effort to reach out to LGBTs outside the Beltway. And that Obama for America online money pitch for the DNC may also dry up.

My answer: not bloody likely. Which is better, people who give you lip service and do a few things here and there, or people who run on an anti-queer platform? Seriously, though I have long argued that most gays would be Republicans if the GOP went libertarian (seriously, I know at least one Republican reads my blog).

From Stampp Corbin, via the San Diego News Network (the what?!):

Last Thursday, the Attorney General filed a legal brief in a California federal case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that made arguments that compared same sex marriage to incest. Thursday, President Obama announced the extension of some benefits to LGBT federal employees; just not the most coveted ones, like health care and pension benefits. Oh that’s right, Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents that and you just wrote a legal brief defending it. When I wake up each morning, I feel a bit schizophrenic myself, “I love Obama, I hate Obama, I am ambivalent about Obama.” It’s maddening.

Someone get me a Prozac.

I ask, “Mr. President how can you argue for the legality of DOMA, when you are for its repeal?”

You really are talking out of both sides of your mouth and my community knows it.

Whoa, dude. There's some seriousness going on out there. I just think it's way too much.

On another note, my school has blocked all blogger.com websites (except for blogger itself) and wordpress.com websites (except for wordpress.com itself). I have no idea what's going on. Absurdities. Apparently, this counts as "social networking."

Brunner on Marriage Equality

I love women in politics, it's why I supported Hillary Clinton... well, that and because she was awesome. In 2010, Ohio will be voting for a new Senator as current Sen. Voinovich has decided to step down. One of the Democrats running is current Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner... who unabashedly supports LGBTQ marriage equality and isn't afraid to say it.

From her recent post on the Huffington Post:

After a dreadful past eight years birthed by a process fueled by hatred (yes, Ohio decided the 2004 election, using the gay marriage ban as the ultimate wedge to drive a record number of evangelical Christian and conservative voters to the polls), we now have the chance to shape the foundation of this century to be one less violent, more compassionate, more responsible and accountable, and one full of opportunity and hope. A good start is to recognize family in all the ways it emerges, for a stronger social fabric that will support us as we pursue the founding ideals of our country for years to come.

Marriage equality's time is now.

Unbelievable and beautiful. Thank you for saying it.

On the flip coin, her Democratic rival for the nomination -- current Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher -- has not always been hot on marriage equality, though has made statements in the past in support of civil unions. Last week, he had this to say to the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

"The government should be focused on creating jobs, lowering health care costs and moving us to alternative energy, instead of trying to stop individuals who want to be in a committed relationship and take responsibility for each other."

It's not rainbow flag-wavin', hugely supportive, but it looks like a softening towards the issue, as WTTE reports.

And thanks to Jason from Out With it Already for the heads up!

Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Pres. Obama has tapped Second Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to replace outgoing Justice Souter on the Supreme Court.

Sotomayor is being widely applauded by Democrats and liberals as a great pick, and it's looking like she will sail to an easy seat on the SCOTUS... making her the third woman and the first Latina to ever serve on the bench. Her experience is widely applauded and seems to the be "ideal" in terms of all those little things we like to see when we talk diversity -- unless, of course, you're Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich who are going so far as to call her a racist. Of course, there are two other major complaints about her: 1) that she's not the smartest judge in the country, but is, instead, strong willed and opinionated... which I'm trying to figure out how much different that makes her than conservative firebrand Antonin Scalia, and 2) she made a statement in 2005 that alluded to the fact that judges help make policy:

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made," she said, laughing a bit through the next part: "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. Okay, I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I know."

That particular quote keeps popping up over and over again, but the incarnation I chose to use is from a Huffington Post article entitled Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court Nominee: All You Need to Know. Though it's been fun to wade through article after article on Sotomayor trying to glean good information, that particular one sums it up very nicely:

• She has only ruled once on any abortion policy, supporting Bush's Mexico City Policy, preventing the government from funding overseas groups that provide abortions. The pro-lifers are down playing that opinion as "not that influential."
• She has never ruled on an LGBT issues, but her personal and professional history indicates that she is supportive, though no word on marriage.
• She will be one of the most experienced justices to ever sit on the bench.
• She "saved baseball" in 1995 when she ruled in favor of the players during the strike over the wishes of the owners.
• She was originally nominated to the Federal Circuit by George H.W. Bush and received wide Republican support. Though, now, she'll be in a much more volatile position, so I have no doubt many more will challenge her.

Again, I'm still learning about her, and I have no doubt most of our opinions will be shaped by the hearings in the Senate... but, so far... so good. I like this one. It's certainly better than Samuel Alito. Jeez.

Also check out these articles: from On Top Magazine, applause from LGBT folks over the appointment of Satomayor, including from the National LGBT Bar Association (which I didn't even know existed...); and an important reminder that abortion and marriage are not the biggest things that SCOTUS rules on, and we should be asking where Satomayor stands on executive power, instead.

Obama's First 100 on LGBT Issues: D-

From Emma Ruby-Sachs at the Huffington Post:

But 70% of LGBT voters came out in support of Barack Obama because they expected that the support for equal rights expressed on the campaign trail would result in action for LGBT people once Obama was in office.

And when it comes to actual change in the lives of LGBT people, nothing has been done. Obama has failed to hand in any of his assignments.

The gay rights agenda is clear: pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act that adds LGBT Americans to the list of protected groups in existing hate crime legislation; pass the United American Families Act that permits committed LGBT couples to sponsor their foreign partners into the country; repeal the Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples even if they are married; pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that would protect employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity; and repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, a policy that forces many service members to forego relationships or live part of their lives in secret in order to avoid discharge from the military.

This is just the fight for legal equality. It says nothing of funding and support for programs that target at-risk youth (1 in 3 gay youths have attempted suicide), public awareness campaigns that promote tolerance and social services - specifically health services - that cater to the LGBT community.

Obama has permitted Secretary Gates to indicate that repealing DADT may never happen. He has merely pledged to sign ENDA and the hate crimes bill, but has done nothing to actively campaign for them. And repealing DOMA isn't even on the radar.

Nancy Pelosi tells us that Congress, and the President, have their hands full with, "health care, energy and the issues related to the economy." And it's true that LGBT people are also citizens who care about the same things most Americans care about: health care coverage, good jobs, a healthy planet.

But we expect the government to be able to multi-task.

We reject the notion that Obama's political power and political capital are all used up by getting this country in basic working order...

Class Participation (30%): B+
Class Assignments (70%): F
Overall Grade: D -

Something to think about for your morning. 

On the flip side, if Obama does sign the Matthew Shepard Act, he will be the first President -- I believe -- to sign a pro-LGBT bill that has nothing to do with HIV/AIDS. Am I right?

Thanks to Journey with Janelle.

What Iowa Means

A lot is being written about the effects of the Iowa equal marriage decision, and I've been reading a lot of them (trust). This is my most favorite, from the Huffington Post:

Iowans, it turns out, have a strong moral fiber and, apparently, enough balls to be the tide turner. Just because they're not donating money to the Human Rights Campaign or picketing the Latter-Day Saints or even hosting large gay pride parades (of course, there are Iowans who do all these things), that doesn't mean, by any means, that they don't have an opinion about the matter or that they don't have a loved one who's gay or lesbian. Indeed, if today showed anything, it was that New Yorkers and Californians value political progressiveness, and Iowans value family even more...

I think it's asinine to claim that Iowa is any more American than New York or California, where gay marriage initiatives haves suffered serious setbacks, but there's indeed something to be said to all those metropolitan gays, lesbians, and allies who are looking at Iowa in surprise today, who have scoffed at and condescended to the Midwest.

I'm just saying.

How the Gays Could Save Us

Via @NiteStar, via @gaysdotcom...

From the Huffington Post:

I've got a simple, cost-free proposal for stimulating the economy: legalize gay marriage.

Forget your politics. Shelve your bigotry. Just listen to the numbers....

The average American wedding costs $20,000. The number of gay couples living together without the benefit of marriage is estimated at 3 million. Using those numbers, same-sex marriages could pump an estimated additional $60 billion in revenue into our ailing economy. That doesn't even include money from the pre-wedding parties, honeymoons, or wedding registries. (Pottery Barn is going to love this post...) I suspect that gay marriage would be celebrated with the same outrageous excess as heterosexual unions. Not that everyone can afford a wedding like Ellen Degeneres and Portia DeRossi's elaborate celebration...but even some vows at city hall followed by a nice dinner with friends would help more than a $300 tax rebate. In fact, that $60 billion in revenue is all taxable!

I've always thought the economic argument was a bit of a fallacious one (a fellatio one?). I really don't believe that gay marriage will "save" the economy.

That said, I have several friends in the wedding industry who would really benefit from a huge boost to their own little economy. But, those who are going to have weddings, will probably already have them regardless of whether it's legal or not.

Sure, Massachusetts benefited (and Connecticut may be right now, too), but that's because of the novelty... not because gay marriage will save the economy.

Also on HuffPo: a debate between Harvey Fierstein and Ryan J. Davis on coopting the black civil rights movement for the purposes of gay marriage -- well, sort of -- it's more about slavery, which is a touchier subject, I understand.

Kristen Gillibrand to fill Hillary's seat?

More and more people are reporting on this -- it appears Congresswoman Kristen Gillibrand will be named the new Senator from New York State, to fill Hillary Clinton's seat. (The original WPIX news story.)

I caught a couple blogs posting it, but it appears that, just 20 minutes ago, Huffington Post has received confirmation of it. However, with the way this has gone, Gov. Paterson has been floating a lot of balloons to see what the take on each person is, from Kennedy to Cuomo. Maybe this is a last minute smokescreen.

Gay Hudson blog called Congresswoman Gillibrand's office about her feelings on marriage equality. This was the response:

"I believe we should have a Federal law that protects all civil unions across America to ensure that gay couples have the right to visit a loved one in the hospital and be eligible for other entitled rights and benefits of committed partners.

The discussion of using the term marriage is more complicated because for many Americans it is a religious right defined as a covenant between a man, a woman and God. Since the Federal government should have no role in dictating religious affairs, I believe from a Federal and civil perspective, "civil union" should be used as the government's definition for all such relationships, including marriage."

Actually, that's a really really excellent response. I'm starting off liking this lady, but mainly because she avoided the limelight, didn't seek out media when her name was mentioned weeks ago, and seems to be a hard working politician.

Gov. Paterson has said it will be officially announced on Saturday, so we'll see.

Funny story, my blog has been flagged for "objectionable content." Grrr...

Bush is still president???

In a giant middle finger to the country as he is about to waltz out of off, President W. Bush and his administration has enacted some rules for healthcare providers via the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Via the Huffington Post:

Very little about the Bush administration could surprise me anymore, but I was completely disheartened when -- despite the written opposition from more than 200,000 Americans, 150 members of Congress, a bipartisan coalition of governors and attorneys general, the American Medical Association, and women's health organizations like Planned Parenthood -- the Department of Health and Human Services issued a last minute regulation that will undermine health care access at nearly 600,000 pharmacies, clinics, and hospitals across the country.

This sort of "take the drapes on your way out" approach is the final chapter of an administration that has prized political ideology over health care for their entire eight years -- and the rule issued yesterday, with little more than 30 days left in office, is the ultimate holiday gift to the extreme right.

Under this new rule, doctors and health care workers of all kinds can deny patients vital health care information and services, without the patient even knowing. No patient is exempt from the reach of this rule: sexual assault victims could be denied information about emergency contraception that could prevent unintended pregnancy, moms hoping to time their pregnancies can be denied contraception at their local pharmacy, young adults hoping to be tested for sexually transmitted infections could be denied treatment by health care employees who oppose premarital sex.

In short, this rule is likely to create total chaos in an already stressed health care system, and for low-income women and families, this rule may spell the end of the few available health care options. Essentially, any patient that utilizes health care at a provider that receives any federal funds will be subject to the luck of the draw in terms of what kinds of reproductive health care they are offered. This might seem far-fetched, until you realize that groups like Pharmacists for Life have campaigned nationally to have pharmacies refuse to provide women birth control prescribed by their physician.

This seems to be what the new rules are saying: that if you are a health care provider and do not believe in something, you are not ethically required to offer it. Birth control and abortion tend to be the big two that people are mentioning, but my question includes questions like PEP or STD treatment... etc. etc. etc.

I thought I was being taught that we don't place our personal judgments on our patients when we enter the healthcare field...

...but apparently a few people skipped class that day.

Planned Parenthood has a petition up to ask Pres-elect Obama to reverse these rules. I signed it -- will you?

ELECTION 2008: It's hard to find good news...

...about the Democratic primary. There's a lot of naysayers and there's been a lot of nasty stuff said.

I rarely read the Huffington Post, but I did today after a quick link off Technorati. And I have to say that I was impressed by what I read.

Regarding Barack Obama's chances of winning and the helpfulness to him of the current primary:

Obama's big trump card in the fall election is his ability to change the electorate - to register and mobilize millions of voters who have not voted before. The long primary season has set the stage for a fall campaign that does just that. It will place dozens of new states into play. It will change the formula for winning traditional swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.

In the end, the long primary season has set the stage for what could be a transformational election that sweeps Obama into the presidency, and substantially bolsters Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

And regarding Hillary's run:

It was clear that the 17-month campaign had taken a toll on Clinton, but at the same time has been incredibly transformative. She famously announced after winning New Hampshire that she'd found her own voice. But, in fact, she has kept finding it and refinding it -- until now, finally, she seems to be more in touch with her own message, instead of the message Mark Penn's poll numbers told her to adopt.

And in doing so, she has redefined and taken over the Clinton brand. Forget welfare reform, free-trade uber alles, and third-way DLC-economics. Since hitting her stride in Ohio, Hillary has transformed the Clinton brand into one that represents working-class Americans. Because of this, she is the Clinton who will now be most relevant to the country's future.

I see Hillary returning to the Senate with a newfound sense of purpose -- and power. With the presidency no longer in her sights -- at least for now -- she could become a commanding progressive force in the Senate....

Even though Rocky didn't win, he was ultimately seen as a triumphant figure. And that's how Hillary will be seen too. Once the disappointment fades and the cuts and bruises heal, the lasting impression will be one of glory, accomplishment, and profound impact.

Hers will have been a game-changing defeat.

We forget that Hillary is one of the smartest members of Congress, and she would have been one of very few presidents that would have qualified for the MENSA organization (Bill being another one, btw, whereas John Q. Adams may have been the smartest of all). There is a game plan in all this. People forget that 17million of us voted for her, and respect her, and adore her.

Thank you, Hillary and Barack, you have changed it all, and you will be remembered for it! (Oh, Geraldine!!!!)


PS The 6-year-old daughter of my roommate, when asked about who was running for president replied: "Hillary Clinton and .... O... O.... Obama" (you can almost hear her not try to say "Oprah"). When pressed about John McCain, she says, in all seriousness: "MOM! He lost already!" This is a big turnaround, as they were rooting for the former Senator from Tennessee because they share the same last name, but were very disappointed when ol'Fred wasn't winning on Super tuesday. I think they were taking it personally until I pointed out my last name wasn't on the ticket anywhere, nor was their mother's. That made them feel better. At least they were in the race.